The Anglo-Boer Wars by Michael Barthorp
Posted in History, Reading Reviewed, War Memorials at 14:00 on 14 August 2010
The British and the Afrikaners 1815-1902. Blandford Press, 1988. 176p
After coming across two memorials to the “South African War” on my recent trip down south (see two of my five previous posts) I decided to read this book at long last.
While purporting to be a complete guide to the Anglo-Boer disagreements of the nineteenth century, which mainly focused on the differing attitudes of Boers and British to the rights of the majority population of the Cape, Barthorp merely sketches the early history and does not devote much space to the First Boer War – for a good account of which see the book of that title by Joseph Lehmann – and concentrates mainly on the military aspects of the Second rather than the political (which is explored more fully in Thomas Pakenham’s The Boer War.)
Both of the conflicts were characterised on the British side by the usual early lack of troops, muddle, disorganisation and, typical of the colonial era, underestimation of the enemy. In both wars the courage of the rank and file British soldier was never in doubt while the Boers were always adept. The political will at Westminster to carry on in the first war was lacking and so peace – with independence for the Transvaal and Orange Free State – came quickly.
Due to the influence of Cecil Rhodes and Sir Alfred Milner the same was no longer true in 1899 and the second war was prolonged. After initial reverses the British began to prevail when Lord Roberts – not long from his triumphant march from Kabul to Kandahar (some areas of conflict never change) – took overall command. Eventually the greater weight of British numbers and materièl as well as increased ability to deal with their more mobile enemy pushed the Boers into avoiding set piece confrontations and to rely on guerilla warfare – at which they were particularly effective. Even Kitchener’s blockhouse system failed to contain them.
In this context Barthorp mentions the collection of Boer non-combatants into camps and the subsequent toll of disease and death but does not see this as a great influence on the morale or effectiveness of the Boer commandos, though it was a propaganda calamity for Britain. He notes the eerie similarity of the battles of Majuba and Spion Kop in the two wars – both eminently avoidable battles for the British and both bloody defeats. He also gives General Buller more credit than I have seen him afforded elsewhere.
The book has occasional maps but a few more would have made certain of the troop movements clearer than the text manages.
Like some Boers a few British officers fought in both conflicts. Many of those engaged in the second war (French, Rawlinson, Gough, Ian Hamilton, Smith-Dorrien, Allenby, Mahon, Haig) and one of the Boers (Smuts) went on to have prominent roles in World War 1, though perhaps failing to learn fully the lessons of the up-to-date weaponry employed. A photograph of the British dead in the enfiladed trench at Spion Kop is reminiscent of one of the sunken road at Antietam in the American Civil War. 21,000 of the 450,000 Empire troops who were engaged overall died (62% from disease.) This explains the war memorials. There were 52,000 other casualties. Estimated Boer troop numbers vary from a curiously precise 87,365 to a rounder 65,000, with some 4,000 dead. An additional 20,000 Boers incarcerated in the camps also died.
While gaining independence in 1881 and then losing it in 1902 the Boers could curiously be said to have won in the second case also since in 1910, a scant eight years after the treaty of Vereeniging which ended the Second War of Independence, as the Boers called it, the Union of South Africa (including not only the Transvaal and the Orange Free State but also the erstwhile British dominated Cape Colony and Natal) was granted full independence within the Empire. The Boers swiftly came to dominate it and in 1948 completed the process by leaving the Commonwealth.
Barthorp notes a final irony. That while the Boers’ attitudes remained unchanged those in Britain who were most against fighting them in the nineteenth century had political heirs who were most forward in condemning the Republic’s policies regarding the black population in the latter twentieth century. (The book was published before the release of Nelson Mandela and majority rule.) He fails to point out the corollary, though. Those in favour of fighting the wars had political heirs who were against any interference with, or even criticism of, the apartheid state.
Tags: First Boer War, Michael Barthorp, Second Boer War, South Africa
Boer War Memorial, Edinburgh – A Son of the Rock -- Jack Deighton
25 January 2011 at 14:03
[…] This is the War memorial that stands on North Bridge (the one above Waverley Station.) The uniforms are of the South African War/Wars. […]
Ron.
10 July 2013 at 08:33
Once again an author makes the tragic error of presuming that the Boers ran South Africa in the 20th cent. The Cape Dutch were / are a LARGER group of White Afrikaans speakers who outnumber the Boers. Hence the Boers were MARGINALIZED by the Afrikaners. The Afrikaners were a political REGIME based on a FORCED coalition of Cape Dutch, Boers & some Anglophones. The Cape Dutch VASTLY outnumber the Boers – so it was IMPOSSIBLE for the Boers to have run South Africa. The Afrikaners – particularly the Afrikaner establishment – routinely suppressed the Boers & prevented them from reclaiming their stolen Boer Republics. No… the Cape Dutch are not Cape Boers or Cape Rebels before anyone starts with that. The Cape Boers were on the frontier while the Cape Dutch were in the south west portion of the Cape. The Cape Rebels were overwhelmingly from the Cape Boer population.
The founder of Randburg: Robert van Tonder left the National Party [ he said joining the National Party was the worst mistake he ever made during an interview ] in 1961… [ the same year that the usurper Verwoerd turned South Africa into a nominal or false republic ] in order to pursue full time the restoration of the Boer Republics. The Boers had tried to restore the Boer Republics during the 1940s & during the Maritz Rebellion of 1914 prior.
Apartheid was a major psy-op that was created by the British long before they coaxed the Afrikaner government [ which they recruited to power remember ] to pick up the reins & take the blame. Not one person of Boer descent ever crafted anything to do with Apartheid. Though a few under the Afrikaner rubric did legislate some of the laws. Just atake a look at the main architects of Apartheid for further proof. Cecil Rhodes was a British immigrant. Lord Shepstone was as well. D F Malan as a Cape Dutch. Not a Boer. JBM Hertzog was a Cape Dutch as well. Despite having fought on the side of the Boers during the war. Werner Eiselen [ the architect of Separate Development which was intended to replace Apartheid but never got off the ground to the point where Eiselen left the government out of frustration ] was the son of a German immigrant. Therefore ALL of the architects of Apartheid were not even from the Boer population.
jackdeighton
10 July 2013 at 19:37
Hi Ron,
I must accept your superior knowledge of the history of South Africa and the Boer Republics but very little of the matters you mention were within the scope of the book I was reviewing nor of other books I have read on the subject of the Boer Wars, nor even of the review itself.
I feel I must stress you are taking issue with one sentence in what was quite a long review and whose focus was primarily elsewhere. From the distance I have I admit to having difficulties with the difference between Cape Dutch and Boers. Weren’t Boers simply Dutch Cape who trekked over the Vaal? In any case the British were – and still are – likely to treat them as one and the same. Surely both were of Dutch origin?
I do state the Boers’ lack of responsibility for the Second War. That belonged firmly to Rhodes and Milner.
My final point was made in a specifically British context; that those in Britain who supported the war were the direct political predecessors of those who became the apartheid state’s most enthusiastic supporters in these islands.
Ron.
10 July 2013 at 08:35
Also Hendrik Verwoerd was a Dutch immigrant remember.
Ron.
13 July 2013 at 03:40
I do not dispute your final point. But I notice that you have a fundamental misunderstanding concerning the difference between the Boers & the Cape Dutch. The Boers are the descendents of the Trekboers who emerged on the Cape frontier during the late 1600s & throughout the 1700s. The folks who coalesced in & around Cape Town & a bit beyond were known as the Cape Dutch. The trekking Trekboers coined the term Cape Dutch [ & Kapenaar ] to describe the folks they left behind. The folks trekking inland were called Trekboers after their nomadic & pastoral way of life they adopted on the frontier. No. The Boers who crossed the Vaal during the Great Trek of the 19th cent. WERE NOT CAPE DUTCH at all! The Boers of the frontier [ who existed as a distinct people for 150 BEFORE the Great Trek ] were the ones who went on the Great Trek [ including a small number of Anglophones ] not the Cape Dutch. In fact the Cape Dutch not only did not go on the Great Trek but they RIDICULED the Boers for doing so & even thought that they would all end up dead. The Boer people were living on the Cape frontier for at least 150 years BEFORE the Great Trek.
The Cape Dutch were pro Colonial & had strong ties to Europe. [ The Afrikaners: an historical interpretation by Godfrey Hugh Lancelot Le May. / Cecil Rhodes and The Cape Afrikaners by Mordechai Tamarkin. ] While the Boers were anti-Colonial & had broke all ties to Europe. [ The Great Trek by Oliver Ransford as well as in The Devil’s Annexe by Sidney Robbins. ] The Cape Dutch never settled much further than Stellenbosch / Paarl & Tulbugh while the Boers settled into areas from Swellendam up to northern Transvaal & beyond as far as Angola & Namibia. The anti-Colonial & pro-independence outlook of the Boers of the frontier is what led to the establishment of the first Boer Republics in 1795 at Swellendam & Graaff-Reinet in the first place. If it were simply Cape Dutch that trekked there then there would never have ever been Cape Dutch Republics as they would have brought their pro Colonial outlook to the frontier as the British / Portuguese & German settlers did.
The Boers are a particular ethnic group who are descended from the impoverished folks who could not cope in Colonial society who chaffed the most under the autocratic rule of the VOC & were forced to trek inland away from the folks who would soon be known as the Cape Dutch. No. The Boers are not of Dutch descent. The Boers are descended from the ethnic minorities that Holland wanted to get rid of. The Boers are descended from the German / Frisian / Danish & French Huguenots [ who were seeking refuge in Holland ] that the VOC sent to the Cape. The Cape Dutch have some of these roots too but have more Dutch roots & certainly did not develop the pro-independence outlook of the Boer people. The Boers had been estranged from the Cape Dutch long before the Great Trek. The Great Trek simply put more space between the two groups until gold was discovered in the Transvaal. Then a number of Cape Dutch started settling there & working in conjunction with the Afrikaner Bond of the Cape tried to promote the compromised & amorphous Afrikaner term to be applied to all White inhabitants of southern Africa. This program was more successful after the Boers were conquered after the second Anglo-Boer War.
Ron.
13 July 2013 at 03:59
No as a matter of fact the British did not treat the Boers & the Cape Dutch the same. The British always made distinctions between the Cape Dutch [ whom they thought of as being more cultured & refined while viewing the Boers in a most unflattering light ] & the Boers. This was especially notable during the era of the second Anglo-Boer War when most of the Cape Dutch were on the side of the British. The Cape Dutch were always Pro British, though that stance was tested during the after math of the botched Jameson Raid. [ As the Afrikaner Bond political party at the Cape was attempting to co-opt the Boer people. ] The fact of the matter is that a lot of Cape Dutch fought on the side of the British AGAINST the Boers. Those Cape Dutch even assisted the British in their atrocities against the Boers by helping the British to round Boers up into concentration camps. The British rewarded the Cape Dutch [ now known as Afrikaners ] handsomely for serving the British Empire. Those Cape Dutch & some now pro British Boers [ like Louis Botha ] along with some Anglophones were awarded control over the macro State of South Africa. There is a faulty mythology that the Boers took control of South Africa [ due to their narrative with borrowed heavily from a truncated version of Boer history to justify their ascendance to power ] via the National Party, but that it total nonsense as it was run by the Afrikaner Broederbond & the majority White Afrikaans electorate were form the Cape Dutch population.
Ron.
13 July 2013 at 04:10
The narrative in question I referred to was an Afrikaner Broederbond narrative. Not a Boer one as the Boers were by then generally conditioned to see themselves as Afrikaners as well due to the indoctrination of the schools / media & churches which were all now being run & influenced by the Broederbond clique. I do not think that people appreciate how the Boer people were usurped by a clique with a teleocratic agenda which marginalized & obscured the actual Boers in the process. National Party ministers rarely ever mentioned the term Boer & the Boers were even prevented from knowing very much about their own post Anglo-Boer War history as the Afrikaners were in the process of excluding Boer identity altogether. The Afrikaner establishment does not want to see a resurgence of Boer self determination as it would compromise the territorial integrity of the macro State of South Africa & they would lose the access they have to the resources found mainly within the old Boer Republics region. That is why to this day the Afrikaans media & money network still propagandizes against Boer self determination.